MacInnis v. Pan-American Life
MacInnis v. Pan-American Life
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 00-30616 _____________________
RONALD MacINNIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PAN-AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans USDC No. 99-CV-3890-J _________________________________________________________________ March 8, 2001
Before FARRIS,* JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:**
This court has jurisdiction over MacInnis’s appeal. We
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
finding that excusable neglect warranted an extension of time to
file a notice of appeal.
After study of the briefs and consideration of the arguments
made by the parties, we are convinced that the district court did
* Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. ** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. not err in dismissing MacInnis’s complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. MacInnis’s federal claims are clearly
insubstantial and appear to have been raised for the sole purpose
of obtaining federal jurisdiction.
Because the district court dismissed MacInnis’s complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, MacInnis is not precluded, by
this dismissal, from raising his breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims in state court. See Daigle v. Opelousas Health
Care, Inc.,
774 F.2d 1344, 1348(5th Cir. 1985). To prevent any
confusion, however, we remand to the district court with
instructions to enter a judgment that will explicitly “dismiss the
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal to
otherwise be without prejudice.” See Voisin’s Oyster House v.
Guidry,
799 F.2d 189(5th Cir. 1986).
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED and
the case REMANDED with instructions.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished